Scotland's Forestry Strategy 2019-29

Agree with the above however additionally and within the above is the access land and infrastructure available for public use. And how this is safeguarded and integrated within the commercial forest. Enhancing recreational assets and land for greater public accessibility.

Partnership working with local authorities and local environmental organisations. a previous joint working group which involved the FCS worked well to develop path networks with FCS as a full and active partner. Woodlands in FCS management were integrated within the local path networks in and around the local settlements. Rights of Way, Core Paths Long distance routes and local path networks used to combine to form a good network of paths with the focus on the local community, However this needs the full cooperation of FCS land management and joined up thinking. WIAT schemes have improved access at certain locations where the FCS does not own much land directly.

Starting point is the community not the forest so the full path network around a settlement is the best route with joined up thinking and the lead organisation is not always the FCS. The FCS accepting the priority path network for the local community and SNH Scotlands Great Trails and working in a joined up way as a public authority to play its part in such routes.

Perhaps not the place but one measurement that may be helpful to aim towards is the length of trails available for public use.
e,g, the proportion of Core paths available for multi use, the percentage of the rights of way on FCS forest land that are signed and free of obstruction.. The length of the Scotlands Great Trails on FCS land that are included in the management planning for the FCS land.

see 7

They relate to the role that FCS has in the joined up thinking with the wider community and other authorities for improvements of the public being able to access outdoor areas and woodlands

Accessibility of woodlands related to the cost to access such as whether forests are within walking distance and the barrier caused by charges for parking etc may be relevant.

While EIA does not include social impact the compliance with the need to keep rights of way open and free of obstruction . Also impact on local path networks, rights of way and the reduction of available land for public access that is often caused with the creation of new forest areas.

There is an interplay between the various environmental factors such as archaeology/history/biodiversity/social impacts . By considering the overview this can be used to enhance the future of forest management with opportunities to improve path networks to access places of interest for example. Also to improve forest management to reduce the disruption to public access or to biodiversity caused during harvesting for example.

The assumption made that local communities will manage woodlands to advance the aims of the FCS is not a good assumption. The community resources needed to manage a community woodland are much much more than people realise and can put a lot of strain on a few volunteers who otherwise may be doing other community work. It may be part of the way forward but it is not the whole answer. Urban forest rangers could do much more for smaller public funds if there was a real commitment to engaging with local communities and the equivalent resources were put into FCS staff directly. Also similar staff in communities in settlements surrounded and within forests. I think in England and in the past in Scotland there was more work done by FCS staff to really engage with communities - not just inform them and provide facilities but with staff really being part of communities.